Damnhippyfreak:Chigau: I don't doubt that the climate is changing, i simply doubt that we fully........ if anything they are good ideas for their own sake. It just means, in my mind, that we aren't able to truly say there is a direct correlation between some things.

You're bringing up an important point, but be aware that the attribution of anthropogenic climate change isn't based on simple correlation, but instead understanding of the underlying mechanisms and processes.

Fair enough, and as I attempted to state before most environmental measures are a good idea for their own sake. From what i have observed, as i did spend some time working in the planetary science labs in college (it was just a job, not really my thing in life) much of the time the researchers were still making a guess, a reasonably logical guess, about what some of those mechanism might be or how they work.

I'm all for trying to make a better world, i just have trouble believing that anyone in current day science truly knows what is normal for a life bearing planet considering our limited frame of reference.

So, until somebody invents Mr. Fusion, we probably should plan more on mitigating the damage (like building sea walls and moving populations from low lying areas) than at the futile task of stopping it in the first place.

Ambitwistor:wvskyguy: The earth has been experiencing hot and cold cycles since the beginning of time. Scientists cut down trees today and can see that for themselves, and they can see that MAN had nothing to do with it. Move along, nothing to see here.

You may want to reflect on the fact that climate scientists are both aware of natural cycles, and also believe that humans can alter those cycles. Ponder how these two observations can be consistent with each other and you may learn something.

Insatiable Jesus:Joe Blowme: I wonder how many scientists are out there still trying to prove the earth is flat? I wonder why?PS - Our President, still black. Enjoy.

You have to wonder? That explains alot about you. See, most scientist use teh scientific method which means they will keep questioning and testing and not just call it a day when they reach CONSENSUS. Now, get back in your moms basement, she will have your mac and cheese ready for you soon.

-----------

You're the one who threw the Flat Earth out there. So, answer the question. If, as you say, scientists keep questioning and testing, why aren't they still trying to prove the earth is flat?

Yeah, thought so.

because they have proven it? It would be an axiom, unlike man made global warming, but something tells me you knew that and were just being a dick.

Just for the record, the methodology produced to use this graphic states that after reading "some combination of titles, abstracts, and entire papers" 24 examples were judged to "reject human-caused global warming or professes to have a better explanation of observations" whereas the 14,000 "climate articles" merely returned a match on the topic of "global warming" and/or "global climate change".

The problem with this method/observation is that there are an infinite number of scientific/research topics that can bloom as sub-topics of global warming, if a mention of the topic is the only metric. A google search of "effects of global warming" will return thousands of abstracts/papers touching on all sorts of tangential effects at all types of scale, in which global warming would never be questioned by the reviewer, because it wasn't the focus of the study. Conversely, rejecting global warming is it's own singular subject, and it should take only a second's thought to understand why there might be drastically less scientists dedicated toward researching the tangential effects of no change.

Regardless of the issue, comparing articles that explicitly deny a topic to those that implicitly agree isn't a fair comparison, and this graphic and what it implies, is playing just as fast-and-loose with the definition of science as those it's attempting to impugn.

thesloppy:A google search of "effects of global warming" will return thousands of abstracts/papers touching on all sorts of tangential effects at all types of scale, in which global warming would never be questioned by the reviewer, because it wasn't the focus of the study.

Yes, good point. A more relevant study would focus specifically on the detection and attribution literature. However, there has been at least one other such study that broke them down into "pro", "anti", and "netural" (with the vast majority of papers being neutral"); "pro" still outweighed "anti" by a large margin IIRC.

Love how liberals believe this is a slam dunk refutation when it is simply a refutation of their own strawman argument.

Very few are saying the earth isn't warming. Congrats on showing this fact.

The argument is amplitude of change and risk quotient involved.

You look stupid when you localize all arguments to a strawman you have created. Likewise, please show how many of those cited articles support the liberal programs intended to fix the supposed problem.

We're currently on the back end of an interglacial period. We want to be farking warm. We should do anything humanly possible to keep it warm. The Earth's normal state is a ball of farking ice, with brief warm periods in between.

This is the Future that awaits our species. It is as inevitable as the sun rise, and there is nothing we can do stop it. We might delay it, but it's coming some time in the next few thousand years.

Joe Blowme:I was unawared the scientific method tells us to stop asking questions once we had a consensus and publication, you would have gotten along great with the flat earthers and the church at the time.

Funny thing: the claim in the graph, the article accompanying it, and this very thread, is not that "the issue is settled".

Bet you could evaluate the actual claim if you'd FARKING PAY ATTENTION FOR ONCE instead of just being a dick nonstop.

maxheck:Worst part about this, pretty much the saddest.... he's lying *and knows he's doing it.*. There was no time in his life where he was freaked out about some coming ice age claimed by pop sci magazines. I grew up in the 60's and 70's and if we're trading anecdotes, no, sorry. That wasn't an issue.

It's a convenient point for people to misrepresemember. "OH HELL YEAH! THEM SCIENTESTS SAID WE WERE ALL GONNA FREEZE" is the way they remember it after an evening of AM radio, and It becomes the new reality.

The only time I truly remember global cooling being really raised was nuclear winter, but if that occurred there would be a few other issues to worry about.

Geotpf:JackieRabbit: Lucky LaRue: All that shows is scientist are worse than the average population when it comes to group-think.

You know how I know you don't know any scientist? They are the most contentious and skeptical people you will ever meet. All but the worst ones are skeptical of anything that goes against their experience, which is why they insist on peer review. The process can be brutal and not for the thin-skinned.

How come neither of you don't know what the plural of the word "scientist" is?

Pocket Ninja:Journey with me, subby, back to the early 1600s. You remember studying the 1600s, right? It was a great time of science and learning, but it it was also a great time of scientific misunderstanding. The best of times and the worst of times, if you want to cite a book that's about to be a very, very big Christmas movie. If you're into that sort of gay musical thing, I mean. I'm certainly not, but whatever floats your boat.

But anyway, I distract myself. My point is that, back in the 1600s, everybody -- and I do mean everybody, every peasant and every scientist and every priest, every-freakin'-body--believed in something called Heliocentrism. Which basically was the belief that everything rotated around the sun. No, wait, that's the way it really is. It's the belief that everything rotates around the earth.

No, wait, I was right the first time. Heliocentrism is the belief that everything rotates around the sun, but it's not what everybody believed. Everybody believed that second thing I wrote, about stuff orbiting earth. I don't know what they called it. Earth-centrism maybe. Or Terra-centrism, scientists like using the word "Terra" instead of "Earth" because it's Latin and sounds fancier. But, so, everybody believed in Terra-centrism, and then along comes this guy named Galileo, had the gumption, the guts, the stones to stand up to the world and say NO. The universe is HELIOCENTRIC. Everything orbits the SUN, not the other way around!

Well, as you might imagine, people were pissed off. Nobody likes their entire universe being questioned. Galileo (his friends called him Leo) was imprisoned in his own house, which doesn't sound to bad until you realize they didn't have electricity back then. No TV, no radio, no internet. Imagine that. He was imprisoned for years. But he stuck to his guns. And, eventually, everybody realized that he was right, after all. The sun IS at the center of the universe.

So think about it. If you were to take your fancy little pie chart and publish it back in the 1600s, what would it look like? The red sliver, which represents plucky ol' Leo, would barely be there at all. And the massive black chunk would represent everybody else who thought he was wrong. AND HE WASN'T WRONG. So what's that tell?

Remember -- being correct means having the courage to stand up to the world when you know you're in the right. It means being the lone voice in a tempest, the single drop in an ocean. Learn from Leo, who was immortalized centuries later in Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody, which tells the story of his struggle to shine truth into the world. I find him absolutely inspiring.

I'll tell you why you're an idiot.

An example of something means nothing. For example, once a plane crashed, you then say all other planes that are flying must crash. Of course this is foolish. Yet you're logic here is the same. Well it would be, except you are comparing a philosophical view versus a scientific view. You are comparing a time before telescopes with no scientific method to modern times. A time where there were no scientific journals or repeated experiments or standard controls. So that's why you're an idiot. There are shifts in scientific thinking still but where those gaps lie and where those shifts occur are usually suspected in the field such as the 1 gene 1 protein theory. Geneticists suspected more must be going on and the theory changed when there was enough data to shift the thought. Here there is next to no data to prove that agw isn't happening.

They'll either start calling you names, or accusing you of making it up.

Also, I'll say it again.

Consensus != Scientific Truth.

Also, for you AGW folks. Just what event, event or data would falsify AGW? In other words, how would we know if Global Warming stopped?

You remember a Photoshopped fake cover of TIME?

What data would falsify anthropogenic climate change? A robust collection of worldwide data over a sufficient period of time indicating a de-coupling of the expected temperature increases from the continued increases in atmospheric CO2 (& CH4, etc.) that cannot be sufficiently explained by the myriad complex downstream events of climate warming (e.g., cloud albedo changes or other negative feedbacks). If a sufficient data set is developed that cannot be adequately explained by the current models, and a non-warming model can be devised that adequately explains prior data, the theoretical frameworks of global warming will crumble.

In the meantime, we have to go with the data we have, and the best explanations of that data, not the data we can imagine having and an explanation we wish were the case.